Resolution to Confirm and Ratify the Authority of Counsel for Sauk County to Add Additional Defendants to Opioid Litigation, including in Multi-District Litigation (MDL) 2804

The County Board of Supervisors previously authorized the County to enter into an engagement agreement with von Briesen & Roper, s.c., Crueger Dickinson LLC and Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC (the “Law Firms”) to pursue litigation against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, among others, of opioid pharmaceuticals (the “Opioid Defendants”) to hold the Opioid Defendants responsible for the opioid epidemic in the County’s community.  On behalf of the County, the Law Firms filed a lawsuit against the Opioid Defendants.  The Law Firms filed similar lawsuits on behalf of 66 other Wisconsin counties and all Wisconsin cases were coordinated with thousands of other lawsuits filed against the same or substantially similar parties as the Opioid Defendants in the Northern District of Ohio, captioned “In re: Opioid Litigation, Multi District Lititgation 2804” (the “Litigation).  Four (4) additional Wisconsin counties (Milwaukee, Dane, Waukesha, and Walworth) hired separate counsel and joined the Litigation. 

Since the inception of the Litigation, the Law Firms have coordinated with counsel from around the country (including counsel for Milwaukee, Dane, Waukesha, and Walworth Counties) to prepare the County’s case for trail and engage in settlement discussions with the Opioid Defendants.  To date, through nationwide settlements, the Law Firms have achieved considerable success on behalf of the County in holding the Opioid Defendants responsible for their role in creating or maintaining the opioid epidemic.  Through the course of ongoing discovery and investigation concerning the opioid epidemic and parties potentially responsible therefor, it was determined that meritorious opioid-related claims exist against additional parties, including but not limited to the entities listed on Exhibit A hereto, and that they should be added as defendants in the Litigation.  The engagement agreement with the Law Firms provides “depending upon the results of initial investigations of facts and circumstances surrounding the potential claim(s), there may be additional parties sought to be made responsible….;”.

While the County believes the engagement agreement with the Law Firms provided the Law Firms with adequate authority to add additional parties to be held responsible, the County understands that recently those parties questioned that authority, and therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, the County is adopting this Resolution confirming and ratifying the Law Firms’ authority to add additional parties, including but not limited to the entities listed on Exhibit A, as defendants in the Litigation.  To avoid any confusion surrounding the County’s authorization to the Law Firms to amend the pleadings in the Litigation to include additional parties, including but not limited to the entitles listed on Exhibit A as named defendants in Multi-District Litigation, MDL 2804, this Resolution is intended to serve as confirmation and ratification of such authorization; and

The County, by this Resolution, intends to confirm and ratify the authority of the Law Firms to amend the pleadings in the Litigation to add additional parties, including but not limited to the entitles listed on Exhibit A as defendants in Multi-District Litigation, MDL 2804, or to commence appropriate federal or state court proceedings against such entities, and further intends to authorize Corporation Counsel to execute and deliver any and all other and further documents necessary to effectuate the intent of this Resolution.